Number needed to misdiagnose: A measure of diagnostic test effectiveness

Epidemiology

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 170-

  Habibzadeh, Farrokh ^a   Yadollahie, Mahboobeh ^a  

^a NIOC Health Organization   (Iran)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DISTRESS SYNDROME; HUMAN; LETTER; PARAMETERS; PHYSICIAN; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRETEST POSTTEST DESIGN; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROSTATE CANCER; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SAMPLE SIZE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84871768080     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31827825f2     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer. 1950;3:32-35.
2. Bandolier. How Good is that Test? II. Available at: http://www.medicine. ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band27/b27-2.html. Accessed 31 May 2012.
3. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1728-1733.
4. Nicoll CD, Jeffrey JG, Dreyer J. Routine acid phosphatase testing for screening and monitoring prostate cancer no longer justified. Clin Chem. 1993;39:2540-2541. (Pubitemid 24008253)